Women's representation in science predicts national gender-science stereotypes: Evidence from 66 nations

Journal of Educational Psychology

Volumn 107, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 631-644

  Miller, David I ^a   Eagly, Alice H ^a   Linn, Marcia C ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Diversity; Gender; Science education; Science workforce; Stereotypes

Indexed keywords

EID: 84938902557     PISSN: 00220663     EISSN: 19392176     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/edu0000005     Document Type: Article

References (95)

1. Arya, D. J., & Maul, A. (2012). The role of scientific discovery narrative in middle school science education: An experimental study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1022-1032. doi:10.1037/a0028108
2. Asgari, S., Dasgupta, N., & Stout, J. G. (2012). When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women's leadership self-concept. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 370-383. doi:10.1177/0146167211431968
3. Barbercheck, M. (2001). Mixed messages: Men and women in advertisements inScience. In M. Wyer, M. Barbercheck, D. Geisman, H. O. Ozturk, & M. Wayne (Eds.), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 117-131). New York, NY: Routledge.
4. Barone, C. (2011). Some things never change: Gender segregation in higher education across eight nations and three decades. Sociology of Education, 84, 157-176. doi:10.1177/0038040711402099
5. Bazler, J. A., & Simonis, D. A. (1991). Are high school chemistry textbooks gender fair? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 353-362. doi:10.1002/tea.3660280408
6. Beaman, L., Chattopadhyay, R., Duflo, E., Pande, R., & Topalova, P. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124, 1497-1540. doi:10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1497
7. Beilock, S. L., Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., & Levine, S. C. (2010). Female teachers' math anxiety affects girls' math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences, 107, 1060-1063. doi:10.1073/pnas.0910967107
8. Bergkvist, L., & Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multipleitem versus single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 175-184. doi:10.1509/jmkr.44.2.175
9. Bigler, R. S., & Liben, L. S. (2006). A developmental intergroup theory of social stereotypes and prejudice. In R. V. Kail (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (Vol. 34, pp. 39-89). San Diego, CA: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/S0065-2407(06)80004-2
10. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470743386
11. Bowen, C. E., & Skirbekk, V. (2013). National stereotypes of older people's competence are related to older adults' participation in paid and volunteer work. Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68, 974-983. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbt101
12. Brandt, M. J. (2011). Sexism and gender inequality across 57 societies. Psychological Science, 22, 1413-1418. doi:10.1177/0956797611420445
13. Brief of Experimental Psychologists et al. as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Fisher v. University of Texas, August 13, 2012 (No. 01-1015).
14. Brotman, J. S., & Moore, F. M. (2008). Girls and science: A review of four themes in the science education literature. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 45, 971-1002. doi:10.1002/tea.20241
15. Bryk, A. S., & Thum, Y. M. (1989). The effects of high school organization on dropping out: An exploratory investigation. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 353-383. doi:10.3102/00028312026003353
16. Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., & Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women's underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218-261. doi:10.1037/a0014412
17. Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Personality and Social Psychological Bulletin, 25, 413-423. doi:10.1177/0146167299025004002
18. Chambers, D. W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The drawa-scientist test. Science Education, 67, 255-265. doi:10.1002/sce.3730670213
19. Charles, M., & Bradley, K. (2009). Indulging our gendered selves? Sex segregation by field of study in 44 countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 924-976. doi:10.1086/595942
20. Chimba, M., & Kitzinger, J. (2010). Bimbo or boffin? Women in science: An analysis of media representations and how female scientists negotiate cultural contradictions. Public Understanding of Science, 19, 609-624. doi:10.1177/0963662508098580
21. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Dasgupta, N. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22, 231-246. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2011.607313
23. Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2012). Social role theory. In P. van Lange, A. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (pp. 458-476). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781446249222.n49
24. Else-Quest, N. M., & Grabe, S. (2012). The political is personal: Measurement and application of nation-level indicators of gender equity in psychological research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 131-144. doi:10.1177/0361684312441592
25. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., & Linn, M. C. (2010). Cross-national patterns of gender differences in mathematics: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 103-127. doi:10.1037/a0018053
26. Farland-Smith, D. (2009). How does culture shape students' perceptions of scientists? Cross-national comparative study of American and Chinese elementary students. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 21, 23-42. doi:10.1007/BF03182355
27. Fensham, P. J. (2008). Context or culture: Can TIMSS and PISA teach us about what determines educational achievement in science? In B. Atweh, A. C. Barton, M. Borba, N. Gough, C. Keitel, C. Vistro-Yu, & R. Vithal (Eds.), Internationalisation and globalization in mathematics and science education (pp. 151-172). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-5908-7_9
28. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1974). Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and multiple behavioral criteria. Psychological Review, 81, 59-74. doi:10.1037/h0035872
29. Flicker, E. (2003). Between brains and breasts-Women scientists in fiction film: On the marginalization and sexualization of scientific competence. Public Understanding of Science, 12, 307-318. doi:10.1177/0963662503123009
30. Fralick, B., Kearn, J., Thompson, S., & Lyons, J. (2009). How middle schoolers draw engineers and scientists. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18, 60-73. doi:10.1007/s10956-008-9133-3
31. Furnham, A., & Paltzer, S. (2010). The portrayal of men and women in television advertisements: An updated review of 30 studies published since 2000. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 51, 216-236. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.2009.00772.x
32. Galdi, S., Cadinu, M., & Tomasetto, C. (2014). The roots of stereotype threat: When automatic associations disrupt girls' math performance. Child Development, 85, 250-263. doi:10.1111/cdev.12128
33. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.692
34. Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2011). The associativepropositional evaluation model: Theory, evidence, and open questions. In M. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 44, pp. 59-127). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-385522-0.00002-0
35. González de San Román, A., & de la Rica Goiricelaya, S. (2012). Gender gaps in PISA test scores: The impact of social norms and the mother's transmission of role attitudes. (IZA Discussion Paper). Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Retrieved from http://ftp.iza.org/dp6338.pdf
36. Gonzales, P., Guzman, J. C., Partelow, L., Pahlke, E., Jocelyn, L., Kastberg, D., & Williams, T. (2004). Highlights from the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2003 (NCES Report No. 2005-005). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
37. Good, C., Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women's representation in mathematics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 700-717. doi:10.1037/a0026659
38. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197
39. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41. doi:10.1037/a0015575
40. Gunderson, E. A., Ramirez, G., Levine, S. C., & Beilock, S. L. (2012). New directions for research on the role of parents and teachers in the development of gender-related math attitudes. Sex Roles, 66, 153-166. doi:10.1007/s11199-011-9996-2
41. Hamamura, T. (2012). Power distance predicts gender differences in math performance across societies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 545-548. doi:10.1177/1948550611429191
42. Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33, 61-83.
43. Hill, C., Corbett, C., & St. Rose, A. (2010). Why so few? Women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. Washington, DC: American Association of University of Women.
44. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
45. Hong, H.-Y., & Lin-Siegler, X. (2012). How learning about scientists' struggles influences students' interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 469-484. doi:10.1037/a0026224
46. Inzlicht, M., & Ben-Zeev, T. (2000). A threatening intellectual environment: Why females are susceptible to experiencing problem-solving deficits in the presence of males. Psychological Science, 11, 365-371. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00272
47. Kimball, M. M. (1986). Television and sex-role attitudes. In T. M. Williams (Ed.), The impact of television: A natural experiment in three communities (pp. 265-301). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
48. Knapp, G., & Hartung, J. (2003). Improved tests for a random effects meta-regression with a single covariate. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2693-2710.
49. Koenig, A. M., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: Observations of groups' roles shape stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
50. Koenig, A. M., Eagly, A. H., Mitchell, A. A., & Ristikari, T. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 616-642. doi:10.1037/a0023557
51. Lenton, A. P., Bruder, M., & Sedikides, C. (2009). A meta-analysis on the malleability of automatic gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 33, 183-196. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2009.01488.x
52. Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B-S. (2011). Science learning and instruction: Taking advantage of technology to promote knowledge integration. New York, NY: Routledge.
53. Lippa, R. A., Collaer, M. L., & Peters, M. (2010). Sex differences in mental rotation and line angle judgments are positively associated with gender equality and economic development across 53 nations. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39, 990-997. doi:10.1007/s10508-008-9460-8
54. Long, M., Steinke, J., Applegate, B., Lapinski, M. K., Johnson, M. J., & Ghosh, S. (2010). Portrayals of male and female scientists in television programs popular among middle school-age children. Science Communication, 32, 356-382. doi:10.1177/1075547009357779
55. Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA's trends in international mathematics and sciene study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
56. Mason, C. L., Kahle, J. B., & Gardner, A. L. (1991). Draw-a-scientist test: Future implications. School Science and Mathematics, 91, 193-198. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.1991.tb12078.x
57. Milford, T. M., & Tippett, C. D. (2013). Preservice teachers' images of scientists: Do prior science experiences make a difference? Journal of Science Teacher Education, 24, 745-762. doi:10.1007/s10972-012-9304-1
58. Miller, D. I., & Halpern, D. F. (2014). The new science of cognitive sex differences. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 18, 37-45. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2013.10.011
59. Miyake, A., Kost-Smith, L. E., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2010). Reducing the gender achievement gap in college science: A classroom study of values affirmation. Science, 330, 1234-1237. doi:10.1126/science.1195996
60. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M., & Gross, J. J. (2007). Signaling threat how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychological Science, 18, 879-885. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01995.x
61. National Science Board. (2014). Science and engineering indicators 2014 (Report No. NSB 14-01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
62. Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 101-115. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.101
63. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166-180. doi:10.1177/0146167204271418
64. Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15, 152-159. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005
65. Nosek, B. A., & Smyth, F. L. (2011). Implicit social cognitions predict sex differences in math engagement and achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 1125-1156. doi:10.3102/0002831211410683
66. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., . . . Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit and explicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36-88. doi:10.1080/10463280701489053
67. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., . . . Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science, 106, 10593-10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106
68. Núñez-Peña, M. I., Guilera, G., & Suárez-Pellicioni, M. (in press). The single-item math anxiety scale: An alternative way of measuring mathematics anxiety. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. doi:10.1177/0734282913508528
69. Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171-192. doi:10.1037/a0032734
70. Pope, D. G., & Sydnor, J. R. (2010). Geographic variation in the gender differences in test scores. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24, 95-108. doi:10.1257/jep.24.2.95
71. Ramsey, L. R., Betz, D. E., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2013). The effects of an academic environment intervention on science identification among women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 377-397. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9218-6
72. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
73. Reilly, D. (2012). Gender, culture, and sex-typed cognitive abilities. PLoS ONE, 7, e39904. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0039904
74. Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52-73. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0501_4
75. Richman, L. S., vanDellen, M., & Wood, W. (2011). How women cope: Being a numerical minority in a male-dominated profession. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 492-509. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01711.x
76. Riegle-Crumb, C., King, B., Grodsky, E., & Muller, C. (2012). The more things change, the more they stay the same? Prior achievement fails to explain gender inequality in entry into STEM college majors over time. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1048-1073. doi:10.3102/0002831211435229
77. Riegle-Crumb, C., & Moore, C. (2014). The gender gap in high school physics: Considering the context of local communities. Social Science Quarterly, 95, 253-268. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12022
78. Rueben, E., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (in press). How stereotypes impair women's careers in science. Proceedings of the National Academies of Science. doi:10.1073/pnas.1314788111
79. Schmader, T., Johns, M., & Forbes, C. (2008). An integrated process model of stereotype effects on performance. Psychological Review, 115, 336-356. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.2.336
80. Shachar, O. (2000). Spotlighting women scientists in the press: Tokenism in science journalism. Public Understanding of Science, 9, 347-358. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/4/301
81. Sherman, J. W., Gawronski, B., & Trope, Y. (Eds.). (2014). Dual-process theories of the social mind. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
82. Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive psychology undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
83. Smith, J. L., Lewis, K. L., Hawthorne, L., & Hodges, S. D. (2013). When trying hard isn't natural: Women's belonging with and motivation for male-dominated STEM fields as a function of effort expenditure concerns. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 131-143. doi:10.1177/0146167212468332
84. Smyth, F. L., & Nosek, B. A. (2013). Male and female scientists' implicit gender-science stereotypes vary with scientific identity, not genderratios. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.
85. Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 947-963. doi:10.1037/a0019920
86. Steinke, J. (2013). Portrayals of female scientists in the mass media. In A. Valdivia & S. R. Mazzarella (Eds.), The international encyclopedia of media studies (pp. 1-18). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
87. Steinke, J., Lapinski, M. K., Crocker, N., Zietsman-Thomas, A., Williams, Y., Evergreen, S. H., & Kuchibhotla, S. (2007). Assessing media influences on middle school-aged children's perceptions of women in science using the Draw-A-Scientist Test (DAST). Science Communication, 29, 35-64. doi:10.1177/1075547007306508
88. Stout, J. G., Dasgupta, N., Hunsinger, M., & McManus, M. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women's self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255-270. doi:10.1037/a0021385
89. Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1-48.
90. Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 112-125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.11
91. Walton, G. M., & Spencer, S. J. (2009). Latent ability: Grades and test scores systematically underestimate the intellectual ability of negatively stereotyped students. Psychological Science, 20, 1132-1139. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02417.x
92. Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, M. J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247-252. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.82.2.247
93. Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2012). Biosocial construction of sex differences and similarities in behavior. In J. M. Olson & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 46, pp. 55-123). London, England: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-394281-4.00002-7
94. Yeager, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., Chang, L., Javitz, H. S., Levendusky, M. S., Simpser, A., & Wang, R. (2011). Comparing the accuracy of RDD telephone surveys and internet surveys conducted with probability and non-probability samples. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 709-747. doi:10.1093/poq/nfr020
95. Young, G. M., Rudman, L. A., Buettner, H. M., & McLean, M. C. (2013). The influence of female role models on women's implicit science cognitions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 283-292. doi:10.1177/0361684313482109